Nicklaus 2025-05-10 11:23 a.m.1. The facts are pretty close to this case. The defendant commanded something from the victim, buttoned their windows, and then made contact with the vehicle (a material fact… admitted by both of us). It was then found that his use of force was objectively reasonable, because of the circumstances.
2. Thank you for recognizing that there is little precedent for this issue particularized here. That doesn’t fare better for you. It just makes it more likely that the law was not clearly established at the time (something you ignore completely in your response) entitling the defendant here to qualified immunity.
"[Clearly established means] existing law must have placed the constitutionality of the officer's conduct 'beyond debate.'" D.C. v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 63 (2018) (quoting Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011)).
"The Supreme Court has emphasized, especially in the Fourth Amendment context, that we may not 'define clearly established law at a high level of generality.'" West v. City of Caldwell, 931 F.3d 978, 983 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100, 104 (2018) (per curiam)). "Rather, we must locate a controlling case that 'squarely governs the specific facts at issue,' except in the 'rare obvious case' in which a general legal principle makes the unlawfulness of the officer's conduct clear despite a lack of precedent addressing similar circumstances." Id. (quoting City of Escondido, Cal. v. Emmons, 586 U.S. 38, 42 (2019) (per curiam)).